The government has been pushing for employer birth control coverage, but just how much does that cost? It depends on the method. For many products, "more for your money" holds true, but it's a little more complicated with birth control. That's one item you don't want to skimp on, and reliability is not necessarily proportional to the cost of the method. We asked the public if $9 a month is too cheap to trust, then dug up some useful statistics on different birth control methods for reference. Let's dive.

Top Opinion

To me this discussion is invalid. Get government out of it, and you've find the problem starts to solve itself. Because guess what -- people want good birth control, and people working together to help each other out is exactly what government does not do well. The reason for that is simple: government is an incoherent religious superstition, where politicians are seen as superheroes who do no wrong, yet simultaneously lying crooks.

I'm not a big fan of government giveaway programs, but I think there may be some benefits to subsidized birth control. If population growth remains at it's present level, the US population will double in 65 years. That would present some serious challenges. Demand for fuel, water, food, resources, housing, transportation... There are already issues with fresh water availability. Either there will have to be twice the resources or everyone will have to use half as much.

Subsidizing birth control to make it more affordable is a relatively innocuous way for the US to reduce population growth. When you look at the big picture though, the west's population is growing very slowly compared to places like Africa. So unless those societies are able to reduce their population growth, global population levels will still go up rapidly regardless of what happens in the US.

Look at the problems China is beginning to have with their failed experiment to control the population. An aging population and no young people to take their places. China's economy will begin to suffer as more and more people retire with less and less young people to replenish their workforce and other aspects of society. They will also have a hard time as the smaller number of young people will be forced to take care (physically, emotionally, financially) of a larger and larger aging population.

These types of social experiments fail because of the laws of unintended consequences.

The population is aging throughout the industrialized world, it's an inevitability as population growth levels off. Population growth cannot go on exponentially forever, it WILL level off, it's only a question of what factors will cause it to do so. Will it be birth control and the security of a social safety net or will it be shortages? It's one of those things that would be better addressed sooner rather than later. Better to have an aging population than a starving one.

The difference here is that the company that is offering it cheaply did not have to do the research, development or advertising. It's already done. When a medication is available as a generic or reduced price item, it means the company that developed it no longer owns the monopoly on the original formula and it can be made and distributed by any company. So, I'd say YEAH. As long as that type of birth control worked for you in the past, why not buy the cheaper one?
Just say no has never worked. Men do no like to wear condoms. Withdrawal is taking a huge chance at best since many times semen is ejaculated long before the orgasm. But, the bottom line here is that women need an inexpensive, dependable form of Birth Control and I would support this option completely.

Hm, very interesting topic. Coming from what I have learned in my years in medical school studies, offering cheap funding toward any medical laboratory is opening a wide ground for error. You just can't pay these hard working professionals in pennies and expect them to give a damn if what they are creating is effective or not. Now if there is a middle man offering to pay the drug company the large amount of money that will be lost in providing this cheap birth control, then go right ahead and offer it at $9 a month. If not, then I can only assume this BC is being made in a state prison somewhere.

I’m not sure how I feel about the cheap birth control. If it’s the same thing, but made by a smaller company, and not associated with a big brand name it doesn’t matter. But is that why they are cheaper? Or are they made differently?
Either way, I think everybody should use some form of birth control. Even if it’s cheap, it’s good to have backup.

I am probably going to regret asking this, but how exactly does one 'perfectly use' a vesectomy? (Let alone obtain a .2 failure...how much of a baby did that make?) Seems the comparison is nonsense for that one. A vasectomy fails if a) it wasn't done right and b) someone skipped the 'tests' you're supposed to do to make sure the 'A' didn't happen and vasectomy took! Follow those and the failure rate would be statistically insignificant.

I have never heard the price of Birth Control Pills, but the price sounds right. I have heard that in some schools give out condoms for free.
When people, that are not in the know, do not know that BC pills are used for a verity of female problems other than for prevent unexpected pregnancies.
Bill O’Riley bereaves that BC pills are party pills and Viagra is not. Viagra and the like pills cost in the range of $9 to $15 per pill and they are definitely a party drug. Only in some rare medical conditions these pills are used for other than pleasure.

REAL Birth Control no matter what the price worls everytiome. The kind of Girl Friends I had were, slip once babuy and you are my hubby. I never slipt.
I can promise you I wish I had a couple of times at my current age

My choice starting at 13 of ags was male condom. I knew how to worl em and never fooled around with them

The generic Pill has been cleared by the FDA as equivalent to the brand name. Yes, it should be fine for the vast majority of women who choose contraception.

But that doesn't mean it's actually AVAILABLE to them. Many doctors will not prescribe a generic birth control pill. There are several reasons for this:

Some doctors are too lazy to research the matter, it's easier to just write the name of a pill under patent that's been marketed by Pharma drug company representatives.

Some just assume a generic isn't actually equivalent. Big Pharma encourages this misconception.

Worse, some doctors get kickbacks for prescribing profitable medications. If they are "investigators" in a "post-marketing clinical trial" they get an "enrollment fee" for every woman they prescribe a particular patented medication. These are referred to as "seeding trials."

I know what you mean, but unfortunately reading what the bible teaches isn't a valid form of contraception. I can see where you're coming from but I think the biggest problem with this whole topic is misinformation about what is available and what is effective.

A packet of birth control pills probably only costs about 25-50 cents to make, so the information about a $9 dollar generic alternative being less effective is misleading. It'll still be as effective as a brand named pill. The only reason the latter costs more is because you are indeed paying for the brand name, not really the contents of the said package.

poor choice of language in my opinion....the intelligent comparison is about generics....which are the SAME without the fancy packaging, spiffy dispensing, colorful or inert ingredients, and advertising which drives the price up.
the hormone content is the same.....

To me this discussion is invalid. Get government out of it, and you've find the problem starts to solve itself. Because guess what -- people want good birth control, and people working together to help each other out is exactly what government does not do well. The reason for that is simple: government is an incoherent religious superstition, where politicians are seen as superheroes who do no wrong, yet simultaneously lying crooks.